Analysis of Section 136 of the Electricity Act, 2003

An Analysis of Section 136 of the Electricity Act, 2003: Theft of Electric Lines and Materials in India

Introduction

The Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter "the Act") was enacted to consolidate the laws relating to generation, transmission, distribution, trading, and use of electricity and generally for taking measures conducive to the development of the electricity industry, promoting competition therein, protecting the interest of consumers and supply of electricity to all areas, ensuring rationalization of electricity tariff, ensuring transparent policies regarding subsidies, promotion of efficient and environmentally benign policies, constitution of Central Electricity Authority, Regulatory Commissions and establishment of Appellate Tribunal and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Part XIV of the Act, titled "Offences and Penalties," delineates various acts that constitute offences and prescribes penalties for them. Among these, Section 136 specifically addresses the "Theft of electric lines and materials." This article aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of Section 136, its constituent elements, judicial interpretation, and its distinction from other cognate offences under the Act, drawing primarily from the provided reference materials.

Legislative Framework: Understanding Section 136

Section 136 of the Electricity Act, 2003, criminalizes the theft of electric lines and materials. As stated in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited And Others v. Anis Ahmad (Supreme Court Of India, 2013), “‘Theft of electric lines and materials’ constitute offence under Section 136”. While the full text of the section is not detailed in the provided excerpts, its caption and judicial application indicate its focus on the physical components of the electricity infrastructure, rather than the electricity (energy) itself, which is primarily covered under Section 135 ("Theft of electricity").

The offence under Section 136 involves the dishonest removal or appropriation of items such as overhead lines, underground cables, service wires, transformers, transformer oil, and other apparatus or equipment forming part of the electrical infrastructure of a licensee or supplier. Several bail applications and orders referenced highlight the nature of materials typically involved in such thefts, for instance, transformer oil (Waseem Kabadi v. State of U.P., 2024 AHC 72805; Waseem Kabadi v. State of U.P., 2024 AHC 72855) and electrical wires (Ankit Kumar And Another v. State Of U.P., Allahabad High Court, 2018).

Regarding punishment, the materials suggest a term of imprisonment. In Waseem Kabadi v. State of U.P. (2024 AHC 72805) and Waseem Kabadi v. State of U.P. (2024 AHC 72855), it was noted by counsel that the maximum punishment under Section 136 is three years. However, in Suraj v. State of U.P. (2022 AHC 7574), it was argued that for a repeat offence under Section 136, the maximum punishment prescribed is five years' imprisonment. This indicates a tiered punishment structure, potentially with enhanced penalties for subsequent convictions.

Distinguishing Section 136 from Cognate Offences

The Electricity Act, 2003, contains several provisions penalizing different forms of unlawful activities related to electricity. It is crucial to distinguish Section 136 from these related, yet distinct, offences.

Section 136 v. Section 135 (Theft of Electricity)

The distinction between Section 136 and Section 135 is fundamental. Section 135, titled "Theft of electricity," deals with the dishonest abstraction, consumption, or use of electrical energy. As detailed in Sohan Lal v. North Delhi Power Ltd. & Ors. (Delhi High Court, 2004) and Sangita v. State Of M.P. (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2008), Section 135(1) enumerates actions such as tapping lines, tampering with meters, or using devices to interfere with accurate metering, all with the intent to steal electricity.

The Supreme Court in Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company Of Orissa Limited (SOUTHCO) And Another v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (2012 SCC 2 108, Supreme Court Of India, 2011) (hereinafter "SOUTHCO 2011"), while primarily distinguishing Section 126 from Section 135, noted that Section 135 opens with the words "whoever, dishonestly" and involves acts specified under clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 135 so as to abstract or consume or use electricity. Section 136, in contrast, pertains to the theft of the physical infrastructure itself – the "electric lines and materials." While both involve "theft" and thus imply a dishonest intention (mens rea), the object of the theft differs: energy in Section 135, and infrastructure components in Section 136.

It is conceivable that an act could potentially attract provisions of both sections, or be coupled with offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, such as Section 379 (theft) and Section 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property), as seen in cases like Suraj v. State of U.P. (2022 AHC 7574) and Shera Alias Sher Ali v. State of U.P. and Another (Allahabad High Court, 2025).

Section 136 v. Section 126 (Unauthorized Use of Electricity)

Section 126 of the Act deals with "Assessment" for "unauthorized use of electricity." This is distinct from theft. The Supreme Court in SOUTHCO (2011) extensively clarified the scope of Section 126, emphasizing that it addresses situations where a consumer uses electricity beyond the terms agreed upon or in violation of regulatory provisions, such as exceeding the contracted load (KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. THOMAS JOSEPH ALIAS THOMAS M. J., 2022 INSC 1293, Supreme Court Of India, 2022).

The Court in SOUTHCO (2011) explicitly stated: "Upon their plain reading, the marked differences in the contents of sections 126 and 135 of the 2003 act are obvious. They are distinct and different provisions which operate in different fields and have no common premise in law... sections 126 and 127 of the 2003 act read together constitute a complete code in themselves covering all relevant considerations for passing of an order of assessment in cases which do not fall under section 135 of the 2003 act." While this comparison was between Section 126 and 135, the underlying principle differentiates civil assessment for unauthorized use (Section 126) from criminal prosecution for theft (Sections 135 and, by extension, 136).

Unauthorized use under Section 126 does not necessarily require dishonest intent, whereas theft under Section 136 inherently does. As observed in Satyabir Goyal v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam And Others (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2015), citing SOUTHCO (2011), "unauthorised use of electricity, which is not deliberate and is unintentional, shall not be regarded as a theft and would fall within the ambit of Section 126 of the Act. Whereas, if the means as mentioned in Section 135 of the Act are used then the offence of theft will be made out and Section 135 of the Act will apply." This reasoning can be extended to Section 136, where the act is a clear theft of materials, falling outside the ambit of mere unauthorized use for assessment purposes.

Section 136 v. Section 138 (Interference with Meters or Works of Licensee)

Section 138 of the Act addresses "Interference with meters or works of licensee." As described in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited And Others v. Anis Ahmad (Supreme Court Of India, 2013), this includes acts like unauthorizedly connecting or disconnecting any meter, indicator, or apparatus with an electric line, or maliciously injuring such equipment. Sangita v. State Of M.P. (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2008) also refers to Section 138 in the context of interference with metering equipment.

While interference under Section 138 might sometimes facilitate theft of electricity (Section 135) or involve damage to materials, Section 138 focuses on the act of interference itself. Theft of the material components (e.g., stealing the meter itself, rather than just tampering with it) would more directly fall under Section 136. The offences can be overlapping or distinct depending on the specific facts of a case.

Judicial Interpretation and Application of Section 136

The provided reference materials offer insights into how Section 136 is applied in practice, primarily through bail applications and other procedural matters.

Cases like Waseem Kabadi v. State of U.P. (2024 AHC 72805; 2024 AHC 72855; 2024 AHC 99039) illustrate common scenarios where Section 136 is invoked, such as the theft of transformer oil. In these cases, the applicant's extensive criminal history in similar Electricity Act offences was a recurring factor considered by the courts, though bail was granted in some instances based on the period of incarceration and the maximum punishment for the offence (Waseem Kabadi v. State of U.P., 2024 AHC 72805; Waseem Kabadi v. State of U.P., 2024 AHC 72855). The Allahabad High Court in one of the Waseem Kabadi cases (2024 AHC 99039) dealt with the practical issue of furnishing separate surety bonds in multiple cases under Section 136, directing consideration for common bonds. A similar direction regarding sureties in multiple Section 136 cases was sought in Ashraf @ Aslam v. State of U.P. and Another (2024 AHC 35348).

The case of Ankit Kumar And Another v. State Of U.P. (Allahabad High Court, 2018) involved allegations of theft of electricity wire, where bail was granted considering factors such as the applicants not being named in the FIR and the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution. Applications for quashing Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) or processes under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. in Section 136 cases also appear before High Courts (Imran v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others, Allahabad High Court, 2025; Shera Alias Sher Ali v. State of U.P. and Another, Allahabad High Court, 2025).

These cases underscore that Section 136 is actively invoked for thefts of various electrical materials, and courts engage in typical considerations for bail, including the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity, period of detention, and criminal antecedents of the accused.

Procedural Aspects

The procedural framework for dealing with offences under the Electricity Act, 2003, including those under Section 136, incorporates provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited And Others v. Anis Ahmad (Supreme Court Of India, 2013) notes that "The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), relating to search and seizure shall apply, as far as may be, to searches and seizure under this Act.”

Furthermore, Satyabir Goyal v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam And Others (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2015), while discussing Part XIV offences generally, mentions that cognizance of offences can be taken based on a written complaint, and that offences under the Act have been made cognizable and non-bailable (referring to Section 151B, though this specific section number is not in the provided text but the context suggests such provisions exist). The reference also points to the possibility of compounding offences (Section 152) and the establishment of Special Courts with specific procedures and powers (Section 154). These general procedural aspects applicable to Part XIV offences would also govern proceedings under Section 136.

Challenges and Implications

Theft of electric lines and materials, as penalized under Section 136, poses significant challenges to electricity distribution licensees and the public. Such thefts lead to:

  • Economic Losses: Direct costs of replacing stolen materials and indirect costs due to service disruptions.
  • Supply Disruptions: Interruption of power supply to consumers, affecting daily life, businesses, and essential services.
  • Safety Hazards: Damaged or missing infrastructure can create dangerous conditions, risking injury or electrocution.
  • Increased Tariffs: Losses incurred by utilities due to theft may eventually be passed on to consumers through higher tariffs.

Proving offences under Section 136 can present evidentiary challenges, requiring effective investigation to link the accused with the stolen materials and establish dishonest intent. The frequent invocation of Section 136 alongside IPC provisions for theft and receiving stolen property (e.g., Sections 379 and 411 IPC) indicates the commonality of these elements in such prosecutions (Suraj v. State of U.P., 2022 AHC 7574; Ankit Kumar And Another v. State Of U.P., Allahabad High Court, 2018). The role of criminal history, as seen in the Waseem Kabadi cases, often influences judicial discretion, particularly in bail matters, reflecting the concern over habitual offenders targeting electricity infrastructure.

Conclusion

Section 136 of the Electricity Act, 2003, plays a critical role in safeguarding the physical integrity of India's electricity infrastructure by criminalizing the theft of electric lines and materials. It is distinct from offences like theft of electricity (Section 135) and unauthorized use of electricity (Section 126), focusing specifically on the tangible components of the power network. Judicial pronouncements, often in the context of bail and procedural applications, affirm its application to a range of materials, from wires to transformer components. The enforcement of Section 136 is vital not only for preventing economic losses to utilities but also for ensuring reliable power supply and public safety. A robust application of this provision, coupled with effective investigation and prosecution, is essential for deterring such thefts and maintaining the stability and efficiency of the power sector in India.